As an Indian, I fully agree with this. The whole purpose of India being in these organizations is to prevent Chinese domination in these groups. India knows this isn't going anywhere but preventing possible risks is probably the reason for India to be in this.
I don't think the dollar is going away anytime soon.
The real winner from all this BRICS discourse is Narendra Modi. He gets to present himself domestically as making big-money moves to keep India independent and non-aligned. At the same time, joining these organisations allows him to throw sand in the gears of anything that could be a China-led alternative to the status quo. The whole South-South cooperation schtick, and maybe a fear of India moving closer to the west, means China can’t say no to this.
I was looking into the Ethiopia numbers, and I noticed that Kenya and Uganda also seem to have strong GDP growth. I'd be really interested in a deep dive of East Africa, and if it's doing as well as it seems to be.
I agree. I was traveling in Ghana(Ashanti Kingdom), remaining for three weeks. While there is fiat currency flowing throughout the continent of Africa until no one is willing to deal in anything but U.S. Dollar. Traveled in Europe, Southeast Asia, Africa, and as far as I could go underground to North Korean Border. 100% OF EVERYWHERE I HAVE TRAVELED U.S. DOLLOR IS THE ACE CURRENCY. ALL THE TALK ABOUT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, is inaccurate.
I believe it's important to understand the pros and cons, not to getting a one sided argument, I'm not an expert in writing but, it's important we get to understand both sides of the story, for instance if BRICs started off 22 years ago and now we see other countries wanting to join, what do those nations see that is not portrayed in this article full of facts on why they can't work?
I would appreciate if we get to see what progress these nations actually see, to join the bloc.
The West too should have their eyes open to why such groupings are happening, to be accountable for changing what needs to be changed, so as to create great alliances.
My similar take when hearing about this; A group of characters, at least some of whom suffer from megalomania, that are 'meeting happy' and think a chat will make a difference but nothing really changes except they get some press and maybe that is the real point - a vague type of economic sabre-rattling.
Would you be able to do a deep dive compare & contrast to China's internal debt problems right now vs the '08 Financial Crisis. My working level understanding is the major difference lies in how the debt is collateralized, but I'd love to hear from a pro at economics
"India and Brazil value democracy very highly," Do they? Both countries have struggled with regimes with autocratic tendencies recently. I am not saying there are no institutions in those countries that support democracy - after all they have managed to resist autocratic takeover - but I don't think it's accurate to characterize either's geopolitical strategy as being defined against autocracy or for promotion of democracy. More like, they aren't monolithically anti-West because the West accepts them as democracies.
The tensions between India and China are very real, but the conflict is not over form of government. After all, India and Pakistan have a long-standing rival and Pakistan is certainly more democratic than China.
The basic driving forces behind BRICS are real - desire to mitigate American hegemony over global affairs, seen most recently in its weaponizing the USD against Russia. Also, BRICS nations have common interests in other economic areas - for e.g. forcing the developed world to acknowledge and pay up for its disproportionate contribution to historical emissions. I believe other arguments (like trying for a military alliance or caring about promotion of democracy) are all nonsense.
Also, proof of the pudding is in the eating. If 15-20 countries from various contients are desirous of joining BRICS, clearly they see something aspirational in what it could stand for and achieve.
It is here that BRICS and SCO have run up against the problem that China is doing its very best to be as obnoxious as the US. So your argument that India (for example) wants to be in some of these groupings just to sabotage Chinese domination, has some truth to it. But can the larger purpose of BRICS given above still be a strong glue to hold the countries together and get stuff done? I would think yes. On one hand, it forces China to dial down its border rhetoric (except in Taiwan). On the other, it enables smaller powers like RSA, Argentina and Ethiopia to make their voice heard and find support.
Let's put it that way: you are not very accurate but you are entitled to your opinion. Don't underestimate how fed up the world is with the US dictating the terms and rules of engagement with its extra territorial law, reach of the USD Etc
I think however the driving factor behind BRICS is not necessarily an explicit anti-Americanism or pro-China attitude but rather an attempt to grow agency.
For most countries, the rules based international order has been a tremendous boon but it also has been a failed promise. Most international institutions which are supposed to be the custodians of this order are dominated by Western nations. At the very least they end up being funded and heavily pressured by the West.
Institutions such as the SCO or BRICS are attempts to build a parallel architecture that gives other, non-Western countries a fairer say in international affairs.
I doubt BRICS will be successful but it does represent the promise of an international order less dominated by the West. I think that is why it has drawn such publicity.
Chinese GDP is approx 5-6 times that of India and India is close to 2x GDP of Brazil and Russia, South Africa is very small so roughly China would be 80% of total brics GDP, which is way higher domination than the USA has in most multilateral institutions.
The institutions where the USA dominates were basically started post WW2 when The USA was seen as a more benevolent country(given the Roosevelt doctrine and how they helped rebuild Japan and Germany as contrasted to how the Allies behaved post WW1) so countries were far more willing to accept USA influence /domination as a positive factor. USA behavior has definitely changed over the years and there have been multiple cases (Iraq/Chile /Iran in the 50s) where it has caused long term damage to those countries (though in my opinion been more a force for good than otherwise). If the current world multilateral order were to be rebuilt today there would be greater pushback to USA dominance in say the IMF, but those institutions are already there and are broadly globally accepted over the last 7 decades.
Brics by contrast doesn't have that heritage and nobody in their right mind would believe in Chinese benevolence or that Chinese domination will be long term beneficial for them. China under Xi has burned bridges with every major power and even the countries that are sort of dependent on them due to Chinese loans don't have much affection for them.
Also the USSR and China have a past history of conflict, most people forget the main reason for Mao coming to an arrangement with Reagan was that China feared USSR after their border clashes in 1969-70 and they needed the USA to balance that. China and Russia may be allies today due to political expediency but there is little trust between them. India as Noah has pointed out is pretty much there to make sure nothing contrary to their interest happens. There is no chemistry between any of the main members so the entire institution is just DoA...
All in all it’s just another BRIC in the wall.
As an Indian, I fully agree with this. The whole purpose of India being in these organizations is to prevent Chinese domination in these groups. India knows this isn't going anywhere but preventing possible risks is probably the reason for India to be in this.
I don't think the dollar is going away anytime soon.
The real winner from all this BRICS discourse is Narendra Modi. He gets to present himself domestically as making big-money moves to keep India independent and non-aligned. At the same time, joining these organisations allows him to throw sand in the gears of anything that could be a China-led alternative to the status quo. The whole South-South cooperation schtick, and maybe a fear of India moving closer to the west, means China can’t say no to this.
I was looking into the Ethiopia numbers, and I noticed that Kenya and Uganda also seem to have strong GDP growth. I'd be really interested in a deep dive of East Africa, and if it's doing as well as it seems to be.
I was going to write this, but I went cycling instead. Procrastination succeeds again.
I agree. I was traveling in Ghana(Ashanti Kingdom), remaining for three weeks. While there is fiat currency flowing throughout the continent of Africa until no one is willing to deal in anything but U.S. Dollar. Traveled in Europe, Southeast Asia, Africa, and as far as I could go underground to North Korean Border. 100% OF EVERYWHERE I HAVE TRAVELED U.S. DOLLOR IS THE ACE CURRENCY. ALL THE TALK ABOUT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, is inaccurate.
I believe it's important to understand the pros and cons, not to getting a one sided argument, I'm not an expert in writing but, it's important we get to understand both sides of the story, for instance if BRICs started off 22 years ago and now we see other countries wanting to join, what do those nations see that is not portrayed in this article full of facts on why they can't work?
I would appreciate if we get to see what progress these nations actually see, to join the bloc.
The West too should have their eyes open to why such groupings are happening, to be accountable for changing what needs to be changed, so as to create great alliances.
Not an expert, just an entrepreneur from Africa
My similar take when hearing about this; A group of characters, at least some of whom suffer from megalomania, that are 'meeting happy' and think a chat will make a difference but nothing really changes except they get some press and maybe that is the real point - a vague type of economic sabre-rattling.
Would you be able to do a deep dive compare & contrast to China's internal debt problems right now vs the '08 Financial Crisis. My working level understanding is the major difference lies in how the debt is collateralized, but I'd love to hear from a pro at economics
"India and Brazil value democracy very highly," Do they? Both countries have struggled with regimes with autocratic tendencies recently. I am not saying there are no institutions in those countries that support democracy - after all they have managed to resist autocratic takeover - but I don't think it's accurate to characterize either's geopolitical strategy as being defined against autocracy or for promotion of democracy. More like, they aren't monolithically anti-West because the West accepts them as democracies.
The tensions between India and China are very real, but the conflict is not over form of government. After all, India and Pakistan have a long-standing rival and Pakistan is certainly more democratic than China.
The basic driving forces behind BRICS are real - desire to mitigate American hegemony over global affairs, seen most recently in its weaponizing the USD against Russia. Also, BRICS nations have common interests in other economic areas - for e.g. forcing the developed world to acknowledge and pay up for its disproportionate contribution to historical emissions. I believe other arguments (like trying for a military alliance or caring about promotion of democracy) are all nonsense.
Also, proof of the pudding is in the eating. If 15-20 countries from various contients are desirous of joining BRICS, clearly they see something aspirational in what it could stand for and achieve.
It is here that BRICS and SCO have run up against the problem that China is doing its very best to be as obnoxious as the US. So your argument that India (for example) wants to be in some of these groupings just to sabotage Chinese domination, has some truth to it. But can the larger purpose of BRICS given above still be a strong glue to hold the countries together and get stuff done? I would think yes. On one hand, it forces China to dial down its border rhetoric (except in Taiwan). On the other, it enables smaller powers like RSA, Argentina and Ethiopia to make their voice heard and find support.
Let's put it that way: you are not very accurate but you are entitled to your opinion. Don't underestimate how fed up the world is with the US dictating the terms and rules of engagement with its extra territorial law, reach of the USD Etc
Living for this Noah slap down of BRICS.
Interesting analysis Noah.
I think however the driving factor behind BRICS is not necessarily an explicit anti-Americanism or pro-China attitude but rather an attempt to grow agency.
For most countries, the rules based international order has been a tremendous boon but it also has been a failed promise. Most international institutions which are supposed to be the custodians of this order are dominated by Western nations. At the very least they end up being funded and heavily pressured by the West.
Institutions such as the SCO or BRICS are attempts to build a parallel architecture that gives other, non-Western countries a fairer say in international affairs.
I doubt BRICS will be successful but it does represent the promise of an international order less dominated by the West. I think that is why it has drawn such publicity.
Chinese GDP is approx 5-6 times that of India and India is close to 2x GDP of Brazil and Russia, South Africa is very small so roughly China would be 80% of total brics GDP, which is way higher domination than the USA has in most multilateral institutions.
The institutions where the USA dominates were basically started post WW2 when The USA was seen as a more benevolent country(given the Roosevelt doctrine and how they helped rebuild Japan and Germany as contrasted to how the Allies behaved post WW1) so countries were far more willing to accept USA influence /domination as a positive factor. USA behavior has definitely changed over the years and there have been multiple cases (Iraq/Chile /Iran in the 50s) where it has caused long term damage to those countries (though in my opinion been more a force for good than otherwise). If the current world multilateral order were to be rebuilt today there would be greater pushback to USA dominance in say the IMF, but those institutions are already there and are broadly globally accepted over the last 7 decades.
Brics by contrast doesn't have that heritage and nobody in their right mind would believe in Chinese benevolence or that Chinese domination will be long term beneficial for them. China under Xi has burned bridges with every major power and even the countries that are sort of dependent on them due to Chinese loans don't have much affection for them.
Also the USSR and China have a past history of conflict, most people forget the main reason for Mao coming to an arrangement with Reagan was that China feared USSR after their border clashes in 1969-70 and they needed the USA to balance that. China and Russia may be allies today due to political expediency but there is little trust between them. India as Noah has pointed out is pretty much there to make sure nothing contrary to their interest happens. There is no chemistry between any of the main members so the entire institution is just DoA...
Good piece. I found your take on Brazil’s interest in playing geopolitics very accurate. Brazilians couldn’t care less about great power rivalry.